2014 MLB Post-Draft Discussion Thread

Preface: I mostly agree, with the exception of the Statute of Frauds issue. But I'm playing devil's advocate here just to show that Nix might have a case and that it might still go to arbitration.

This is not necessarily true. It could well be that verbal agreements like this one are fully binding but are conditional upon Commissioner's Office approval and a passed physical. Nix would then argue that the Astros breached by not submitting a contract to the Commisioner to approve, thus making it impossible to determine whether or not the condition would have otherwise been satisfied. This is a pretty standard theory of breach, and one that has at least a small chance of being successful. An adjudicator would look at some of the factors I mentioned above, and though the Astros would probably win on this issue, there's at least a small chance they might not.

I discussed earlier why the one-year rule likely doesn't apply. The dollar limitation only applies to the sale of goods context under the UCC-- this is a services contract, to which there are no dollar limitations. I remain convinced that there is no Statute of Frauds issue here.

You're right that Aiken must have actually detrimentally relied on the Astros' promise. But there is a chance that he did-- for instance, by formally hiring Close as his agent (and thus losing NCAA eligibility) or by missing registration deadlines/summer classes or by making some extravagant purchase. He might be able to recover reliance damages if anything like the above took place and a reasonable person would have relied on the Astros' promise. Again: not entirely likely, but well within the realm of possibility.

I would say it is possible that Aiken could sue for damages under a quasi-contract theory, but almost certainly loses if he attempts to enforce specific performance or simply argue a contract was formed for remedy purposes.

The more interesting situation is with Nix, because it is a much closer call as to whether a contract was formed. There just simply isn't enough facts to make a case either way at this point, but I think many of the posters above have described a few of the contract principles that are at issue: mutual assent, valid consideration, statute of frauds.

As far as the statute of frauds, it seems there is some confusion as to whether the agreement the draftee signs is for less than one year of service or more. I really don't know enough about MILB contracts to make a judgment call here, but I was originally under the assumption that these were multiple-year contracts. Again, more facts would make this situation much clearer.

Good point. I am assuming it is similar tot he Uniform MLB contract, which is appended to the back of the CBA. That covers a single season. The MLB cabal agreement not to sign players on various "lists" is what gives teams multiple years of player control, and limits their obligation to only pay a single season unless agreed to otherwise.

Im fairly certain they don't have to play at all in order to keep the bonus, they just cant sign anywhere else. What they stand to lose by just not showing up is their minor league salary (which is minuscule) and whatever chance they had at a major league salary and/or contract in the future. The team could maybe sue if they could prove that he knowingly mislead them and had no intention of playing even before signing, but say he has some life altering event between signing and reporting that changes his entire outlook on life and he decides he never wants to play again, I'm pretty sure there is nothing the team can do.